I just received an evaluation review on a gas station audit. It was marked down 2 points due to perceived dirt issues on a reader board and restroom. The client's guidelines have a generalized definition of dirt and little criteria to go on. The reader board had faded black lines which appear from a distance as dirt, but are not. The restroom has embedded staining of the floor tiles which would be very difficult to remove.

I composed an email to the reviewer, but am hesitant to send it. Please share your opinions.

I vote no. You will still be paid, and you certainly don't want to **ss off the editor. Hopefully writing the email helped you feel better. We've all been there.

I would respond diplomatically. Thank the editor for the feedback, explain the true conditions, and confirm whether the editor wants you to equate such conditions as dirtiness in the future.

Only 2 points? I agree with Nikki. Take satisfaction in writing the email and then delete it. This is not a competition and no need to keep score.

I really do not care about the grade. The station suffers for the errors, presumably by having a lower score.

Many instructions use the term "excessive" when describing infractions such as dirt, fading or damage. That leaves everything open to the shopper and the editor to determine what they consider excessive. I have lost points by not marking off for a flake or two of paint peeling on a main ID sign, a small nick on the gas pump or hard water stains on a sink. Whatever. If the editor thinks that's excessive, fine. Sometimes I will include a comment at the end of the report but often, by the time I reach the end of the report, I forget all about it.

If you are talking about the main ID sign, it might be rust, not dirt. Last month I had to mark what I thought was either dirt or a collection of dead bugs on the inside of the top panel on the main ID. I was informed by the owner (while at another one of his locations) that he was told he will have to replace that top panel for a price tag of $20,000 because it is rust, not dirt

There are real, often significant, cost implications for every violation. Some owners are just plain lazy. I've got one location who has 3 fluorescent bulbs missing from inside the store. Why not just buy the bulbs and put them up? Even if there is an issue with the fixture, it would not cost that much to fix. Instead, he pays for the violation every time I mark it.

I've also had to explain to owners that I don't know anything about how each question is scored, and I do not see the final report. I'm there to collect data and, if I miss something, my report either gets rejected and I don't get paid or I have to come back, if I don't have a photo. I always take more photos than I need. Since something like dirt can be subjective, I will often take photos, then look at them at home blown up on my computer. When I blow up the pump photo, for example, if the dirt stands out to me, then I mark it.

To get back to your question, as others have said, don't sweat over the score. They accepted your report, you can still do the shops, and you'll be paid. I lost two points over a cut-off receipt about a month ago. I did not cut off the receipt in the photo, that's just how it was handed to me by the CSR. I agree that adding notes to the comments can help, and I should have done that with the cut off receipt.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2023 05:40PM by ServiceAward.

You provided the observations. Let them decide what they need to take up with the owner. You get paid. That's all you want from it. Grades are something we got in school. Don't sweat it.

When I think an item may be questionable by an editor, I add a note in the comments section, e.g. "Lines on the reader board are not dirt. The board is fading possibly from weather elements and/or age." Although most gas shops I do, ask a question about the condition of the board beyond dirt to include things such as dents, chipping, lighting, color, prices, etc.

Some gas shop guidelines mention "long standing" on cleanliness check points. In the case of the floor, the degree of difficulty to remove is not considered. For example, graffatti on a pump or bathroom door can be hard to remove, but the stations are dinged when present and expected to remove it.

No, we can not be expected to be mind readers, but when editors mark down for things like this, I sometimes think it is because they are remembering it from repeatedly seeing in previous shopper reports. Although its suppose to be a clear yes or no response, its subjective to a degree.

In the end, if it does not ding what you get paid, don't worry, be happy!

Providing explanations in the comments can avoid some of this, but that's more work for something that barely pays enough as it is. It's also a slippery slope where editors will begin expecting it and start demanding more information that is not in the scope of the work.

Several years ago I spoke to one of the project managers, who said the preferred entry in the comments field was "N/A", and the field should be used sparingly and only in unusual circumstances. Now many editors feel they need explanations for something because they couldn't tell from the pictures if our answers were correct or not. I'm not trying to bash editors, they do a great job overall and catch lots of mistakes, but I worry about us getting burdened with more work without more pay.

Spending zero time fretting about mystery shopping scores is one second too much...